The CD argument holds a double standard

Ipse dixit wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Has anyone else apart from me wondered why the likes of Jonathan Ball, Usual Suspect and Dutch
allow Rick Etter's continual denial of the collateral deaths associated with his diet to go
unchallenged?

Well, no...I believe I have a good idea why. But then I don't claim to read minds, so I can't say
I'm 100 per cent sure.... 🙂

<snip>

Quoted message said:

So, why do the antis attack vegans for allegedly denying the collateral deaths associated with
their diet while ignoring Rick's total denial of the deaths associated with his? I'm not
questioning anyone's belief of their responsibility for them, but rather the anti's silence while
one particular regular on these animal related groups goes unchallenged for ever daring to suggest
no animals die for his food. I believe their CD argument holds a double standard.

There's no question that there are large numbers of collateral deaths associated with ranching
and grazing, whether for meat or for wool. Much of the heavy pressure is to kill any predator who
might attack sheep, and since sheep are much more vulnerable than cattle, predators down to the
size of foxes and eagles are targeted to help sheep ranchers. Many animals who are not predators,
but rivals for grass, such as prairie dogs and wild sheep, are also targeted for extermination.
Ranched and grass-fed domestic animals also remove habitat for wild animals, just as farming of
vegetables does, although both farming and ranching also provide habitat for certain species of
wild animals as well. Even if the animals were restricted to buildings and fed harvested grass --
hay --, CDs would be associated with production of the hay. CDs are a by-product of any diet, but
the lowest number would probably be produced by raising vegetables in enclosed structures.

Rat

"Ipse dixit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Has anyone else apart from me wondered why the likes of Jonathan Ball, Usual Suspect and Dutch
allow Rick Etter's continual denial of the collateral deaths associated with his diet to go
unchallenged?

If you look at a recent discussion between Rick and myself on this issue you'll see there's no
doubt that Rick denies the fact or possibility that grass fed beef accrues collateral deaths
despite evidence provided from a list of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Animal Damage Control Program.

What evidence do you have that Rick Etter's meat producers fall under this program?

[..]

Ipse dixit said:

I believe their CD argument holds a double standard.

It doesn't.

"Ipse dixit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Has anyone else apart from me wondered why the likes of Jonathan Ball, Usual Suspect and Dutch
allow Rick Etter's continual denial of the collateral deaths associated with his diet to go
unchallenged?

===========================
You ignorant fool. We don't deny that death occur for our diets. man, you really are just too dense,
aren't you?

Quoted message said:

If you look at a recent discussion between Rick and myself on this issue you'll see there's no
doubt that Rick denies the fact or possibility that grass fed beef accrues collateral deaths
despite evidence provided from a list of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Animal Damage Control Program.

======================
Nope. It's your unethical snipping that makes you think that. I said that the beef I eat gets none
of those government benefits. That you contiune to snipp it out is your problem with ethics. Just
like the one you have for killing animals...

Quoted message said:

[start]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> >> >Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government exterminates tens of thousands of
>> >> >predator and "nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list of animals killed by
>> >> >the U.S. Department

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> >> >Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502 coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236
>> >> >black bears, 1,220 bobcats and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000 beavers,
>> >> >76,000

coyotes,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> >> >5,000 raccoons, 300 black bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were killed. Some
>> >> >400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used
>> >> >include

poisoning,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> >> >shooting, gassing, and burning animals in their dens.
>> >> >======================
>> >> >ROTFLMAO And the majority of those are killed to protect crops
>> >>
>> >> Ah, but it does give numbers proving grass fed beef accrues collateral deaths, so why do
>> >> you ignore them, hypocrite?
>> >======================
>> >Nope.
>>
>> You do ignore them, and that's a fact, liar.
>======================
>Nope.

Yep. They do exist.

=================
Nope.

So, though you insist collateral deaths exist in crop production, you also deny they exist in
grass fed beef production. Thanks for such an excellent example of a meatarian's state of
denial. [end]

=======================
Nope. Again, your unethical snipping is noted, by me, not annotated by *you*. Of course that's part
n parcel with the dishonesty that is passed off as veganism.

Quoted message said:

So, why do the antis attack vegans for allegedly denying the collateral deaths associated with
their diet while ignoring Rick's total denial of the deaths associated with his? I'm not
questioning anyone's belief of their responsibility for them, but rather the anti's silence while
one particular regular on these animal related groups goes unchallenged for ever daring to suggest
no animals die for his food. I believe their CD argument holds a double standard.

=====================
No, it doesn't fool. We acknowledge that animals die for our diets. We don't try to cover them up,
or wish tham away with meaningless babble about your supposed ethics and supposed concern. You
really are just too ignorant to even understand *your* impact, much less discuss anybody elses.

Rat & Swan said:

Ipse dixit wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Has anyone else apart from me wondered why the likes of Jonathan Ball, Usual Suspect and Dutch
allow Rick Etter's continual denial of the collateral deaths associated with his diet to go
unchallenged?

Well, no...I believe I have a good idea why.

You're undoubtedly wrong. Your very reason for being here at all is based on wrong thinking and a
stupid belief in a morally and logically untenable position, so it is not surprising you'd get this
wrong as well.

"Dutch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Ipse dixit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Has anyone else apart from me wondered why the likes of Jonathan Ball, Usual Suspect and Dutch
allow Rick Etter's continual denial of the collateral deaths associated with his diet to go
unchallenged?

If you look at a recent discussion between Rick and myself on this issue you'll see there's no
doubt that Rick denies the fact or possibility that grass fed beef accrues collateral deaths
despite evidence provided from a list of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Animal Damage Control Program.

What evidence do you have that Rick Etter's meat producers fall under this program?

[The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under
its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's biggest and most controversial
activities is killing coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect western livestock.

Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government exterminates tens of thousands of predator and
"nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list of animals killed by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502 coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears,
1,220 bobcats, and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000 beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000
raccoons, 300 black bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were killed. Some 400 pet dogs and
100 cats were also inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used include poisoning, shooting,
gassing, and burning animals in their dens. Keith Schneider, "Mediating the Federal War of the
Jungle," New York Times, July 9, 1991, 4E; Carol Grunewald, ed, _Animal Activist Alert_, 8:3
(Washington D.C.: Humane Society of the United States,
1990), 3.

Two wildlife groups, Wildlife Damage Review, from Tucson, Arizona, and the Predator Project, from
Bozeman, Montana, asked the Thoreau Institute to audit ADC's program. This audit examines ADC's
budget in general and focuses in particular on the funds it spends controlling coyotes and other
livestock predators. The principle findings include:

1991) ADC's programs are unfairly distributed to selected Americans. A program to protect sunflower
crops from blackbirds operates in North Dakota to the exclusion of sunflower farmers in
Minnesota, South Dakota, and other states. The livestock protection program primarily benefits
western ranchers to the exclusion of most eastern livestock growers.
1992) ADC's livestock protection program creates perverse incentives for ranchers to use submarginal
land, to overgraze public land, and to rely on taxpayers rather than actions they could take
to protect their herds.
1993) Although ADC has expanded its scope of activities, western livestock protection, which mainly
means killing coyotes, still accounts for most --53 percent--of its total operational budget.
1994) Since 75 percent of federal livestock funds are spent on public lands, 40 percent of ADC's
federal funds are dedicated to the 27,000 ranchers who graze livestock on public lands.
1995) On-the-ground costs to the federal government of western livestock protection total more than
$10 million per year. When ADC and APHIS overhead is added, the costs total to more than $13
million per year. Research costs probably add several more million.
1996) When state and local contributions are added, ADC kills coyotes at an average cost of well
over $100 per animal. Costs sometimes exceed $2,000 per animal.
1997) ADC's livestock-protection mission has apparently failed. In general, states with active ADC
livestock programs experience higher predator losses than states with minimal or no livestock
programs. The starkest contrast: Farmers in Kansas, with no federal ADC livestock program,
suffer significantly lower predation rates than those in neighboring Nebraska and Oklahoma,
which each spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to kill thousands of predators each year.]
ti.orgadcreport.htmlOpen ↗

Although if Rick wants to insist that the grass fed beef he eats isn't protected by this program, or
aren't protected by any other program, why haven't you challenged him on his denial of the
collateral deaths associated with the packing, cold storage, distribution and habitat loss?

"usual suspect" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

removed xpost to afv

Restored xpost to afv

Quoted message said:

Ipse dixit said:

Has anyone else apart from me wondered

No.

I didn't think you would. After all, the CD argument is just another double standard for you to
adopt from Jon, really, isn't it?

"Bill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ipse dixit said:

I believe their CD argument holds a double standard.

It doesn't.

You ignore Rick's denial of the collateral deaths associated with his diet while at the same time
criticising vegans for denying the collateral deaths associated with theirs, so your argument
against vegans is a double standard.

"rick etter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Ipse dixit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Has anyone else apart from me wondered why the likes of Jonathan Ball, Usual Suspect and Dutch
allow Rick Etter's continual denial of the collateral deaths associated with his diet to go
unchallenged?

===========================
You ignorant fool. We don't deny that death occur for our diets.

You do deny that collateral deaths are associated with a part of your diet: grass fed beef.

I didn't ask about the beef you eat, because I knew you were going to lie about it by claiming your
particular grass fed beef is different from all other grass fed beef and doesn't accrue any
collateral deaths at all, and it seems I was right. So I'll ask again.

"Do you accept that the *general* production, storage, and distribution of grass fed beef
accumulates any collateral deaths?"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So, why do the antis attack vegans for allegedly denying the collateral deaths associated with
their diet while ignoring Rick's total denial of the deaths associated with his? I'm not
questioning anyone's belief of their responsibility for them, but rather the anti's silence
while one particular regular on these animal related groups goes unchallenged for ever daring to
suggest no animals die for his food. I believe their CD argument holds a double standard.

=====================
No, it doesn't fool. We acknowledge that animals die for our diets. We don't try to cover them up

Then tell me how many collateral deaths are associated with the grass fed beef you eat. After that
tell me if you accept that the *general* production, storage, and distribution of grass fed beef
accumulates any collateral deaths.

"Ipse dixit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Dutch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Ipse dixit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Has anyone else apart from me wondered why the likes of Jonathan Ball, Usual Suspect and Dutch
allow Rick Etter's continual denial of the collateral deaths associated with his diet to go
unchallenged?

If you look at a recent discussion between Rick and myself on this issue you'll see there's no
doubt that Rick denies the fact or possibility that grass fed beef accrues collateral deaths
despite evidence provided from a list of animals killed by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program.

What evidence do you have that Rick Etter's meat producers fall under this program?

[The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture

-snip-

Quoted message said:

ti.orgadcreport.htmlOpen ↗

None of that is evidence that his meat is covered by this program. Why did you repeat it?

Quoted message said:

Although if Rick wants to insist that the grass fed beef he eats isn't protected by this program,
or aren't protected by any other program, why haven't you challenged him on his denial of the
collateral deaths associated with the packing, cold storage, distribution and habitat loss?

I don't believe anything you say, you're a proven liar.

"Ipse dixit" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

"Bill" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ipse dixit said:

I believe their CD argument holds a double standard.

It doesn't.

You ignore Rick's denial of the collateral deaths associated with his diet while at the same time
criticising vegans for denying the collateral deaths associated with theirs, so your argument
against vegans is a double standard.

Do you actually think people read the discussions between you and rick etter?

If you have a specific quote to present that shows a double standard then do so.

Ipse dixit said:

"Bill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ipse dixit said:

I believe their CD argument holds a double standard.

It doesn't.

You ignore Rick's denial of the collateral deaths associated with his diet while at the same time
criticising vegans for denying the collateral deaths associated with theirs, so your argument
against vegans is a double standard.

I haven't read Rick's posts about the CDs in his diet, so I can't be consciously ignoring them. I
don't intend to read them, either. I have only your word to go on that he's doing it, and your word
is notoriously unreliable.

My argument is not "a double standard".

"Ipse dixit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Bill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ipse dixit said:

I believe their CD argument holds a double standard.

It doesn't.

You ignore Rick's denial of the collateral deaths associated with his diet

=======================
No, I did not. CDs occur for my veggies same as they occur for yours you ignorant twit. I've never
claimed that animals don't die because of my food. That's your position.

while at the same time criticising vegans for

Quoted message said:

denying the collateral deaths associated with theirs, so your argument against vegans is a double
standard.

==================
Nope. You haven't shown that at all. All you've shown is how ignorant and unethical you are.

"Ipse dixit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"rick etter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Ipse dixit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Has anyone else apart from me wondered why the likes of Jonathan Ball, Usual Suspect and Dutch
allow Rick Etter's continual denial of the collateral deaths associated with his diet to go
unchallenged?

===========================
You ignorant fool. We don't deny that death occur for our diets.

You do deny that collateral deaths are associated with a part of your diet: grass fed beef.

I didn't ask about the beef you eat,

======================
Why? Afraid that i'm answering truthfully, which I am? It's all about individuals you ignorant fool!
That's why you do everything *you* can to ly about your diet and impact. I have never claimed
animals don't die because of my diet. You do.

because I knew you

Quoted message said:

were going to lie about it by claiming your particular grass fed beef is different from all other
grass fed beef and doesn't accrue any collateral deaths at all, and it seems I was right. So I'll
ask again.

========================
No, you won't. Because you'll unethically edit the responses again, because you don't like the fact
you've been caught, again, in you're own little game of deceit and delusions.

Quoted message said:

"Do you accept that the *general* production, storage, and distribution of grass fed beef
accumulates any collateral deaths?"
============================

No fool, I haven't said that at all. Like you, I only talk about 'my' diet. Kinda like your fallen
apples and stuff. Afterall, it's only *your* specific diet that you think matters. Why is it
everybody elses general diets? Because you're the hypocritical ignorant fool you are?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So, why do the antis attack vegans for allegedly denying the collateral deaths associated with
their diet while ignoring Rick's total denial of the deaths associated with his? I'm not
questioning anyone's belief of their responsibility for them, but rather the anti's silence
while one particular regular on these animal related groups goes unchallenged for ever daring
to suggest no animals die for his food. I believe their CD argument holds a double standard.

=====================
No, it doesn't fool. We acknowledge that animals die for our diets. We don't try to cover
them up

Then tell me how many collateral deaths are associated with the grass fed beef you eat. After that
tell me if you accept that the *general* production, storage, and distribution of grass fed beef
accumulates any collateral deaths.

============================
Why? The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period. UInlike you, I know where my it comes from.
You have *no* idea where your food comes from except the local supermarket. Again, when you begin to
realize that you can't specify *your* diet, and compare it to *general* diest of everyone else, come
on back you hypocritical fool.

"Dutch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Ipse dixit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Dutch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Ipse dixit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
>
> Has anyone else apart from me wondered why the likes of Jonathan Ball, Usual Suspect and
> Dutch allow Rick Etter's continual denial of the collateral deaths associated with his diet
> to go unchallenged?
>
> If you look at a recent discussion between Rick and myself on this issue you'll see there's
> no doubt that Rick denies the fact or possibility that grass fed beef accrues collateral
> deaths despite evidence provided from a list of animals killed by the U.S. Department of
> Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program.

What evidence do you have that Rick Etter's meat producers fall under this program?

[The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture

-snip-

Quoted message said:

ti.orgadcreport.htmlOpen ↗

None of that is evidence that his meat is covered by this program. Why did you repeat it?

It is evidence showing the collateral deaths associated with grazing livestock, and if you read my
paragraph below you'll see I've made provisions for any denials he may offer in that the beef he
eats isn't protected by the ADC.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Although if Rick wants to insist that the grass fed beef he eats isn't protected by this
program, or aren't protected by any other program, why haven't you challenged him on his
denial of the collateral deaths associated with the packing, cold storage, distribution and
habitat loss?

I don't believe anything you say, you're a proven liar.

Why haven't you challenged him on his denial of the collateral deaths associated with the packing,
cold storage, distribution and habitat loss concerning HIS grass fed beef, Dutch?

"Dutch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Ipse dixit" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

"Bill" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Ipse dixit wrote:
>
> I believe their CD argument holds a double standard.

It doesn't.

You ignore Rick's denial of the collateral deaths associated with his diet while at the same
time criticising vegans for denying the collateral deaths associated with theirs, so your
argument against vegans is a double standard.

Do you actually think people read the discussions between you and rick etter?

How the heck is that supposed to prove you aren't using a double standard with Jon's CD argument, or
that Rick isn't denying the existence of collateral deaths associated with grass fed beef?

Quoted message said:

If you have a specific quote to present that shows a double standard then do so.

I have produced it already and in context at the beginning of this thread.

If you look at a recent discussion between Rick and myself on this issue you'll see there's no doubt
that Rick denies the fact or possibility that grass fed beef accrues collateral deaths despite
evidence provided from a list of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal
Damage Control Program.

[start]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >> >Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government exterminates tens of thousands of
> >> >predator and "nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list of animals killed by
> >> >the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502
> >> >coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million
> >> >birds, 9,000 beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black bears, and 200 mountain
> >> >lions, among others, were killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also inadvertently
> >> >killed. Extermination methods used include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning
> >> >animals in their dens.
> >> >======================
> >> >ROTFLMAO And the majority of those are killed to protect crops
> >>
> >> Ah, but it does give numbers proving grass fed beef accrues collateral deaths, so why do
> >> you ignore them, hypocrite?
> >======================
> >Nope.
>
> You do ignore them, and that's a fact, liar.
======================
Nope.

Yep. They do exist.

=================
Nope.

[end]

There you are: proof showing Rick denial of the collateral deaths associated with grass fed beef.

"Bill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ipse dixit said:

"Bill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ipse dixit wrote:
>
>I believe their CD argument holds a double standard.

It doesn't.

You ignore Rick's denial of the collateral deaths associated with his diet while at the same
time criticising vegans for denying the collateral deaths associated with theirs, so your
argument against vegans is a double standard.

I haven't read Rick's posts about the CDs in his diet, so I can't be consciously ignoring them.

That dodge won't help you.

If you look at a recent discussion between Rick and myself on this issue you'll see there's no doubt
that Rick denies the fact or possibility that grass fed beef accrues collateral deaths despite
evidence provided from a list of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal
Damage Control Program.

[start]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >> >Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government exterminates tens of thousands of
> >> >predator and "nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list of animals killed by
> >> >the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502
> >> >coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million
> >> >birds, 9,000 beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black bears, and 200 mountain
> >> >lions, among others, were killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also inadvertently
> >> >killed. Extermination methods used include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning
> >> >animals in their dens.
> >> >======================
> >> >ROTFLMAO And the majority of those are killed to protect crops
> >>
> >> Ah, but it does give numbers proving grass fed beef accrues collateral deaths, so why do
> >> you ignore them, hypocrite?
> >======================
> >Nope.
>
> You do ignore them, and that's a fact, liar.
======================
Nope.

Yep. They do exist.

=================
Nope.

[end]

Quoted message said:

I don't intend to read them, either.

Too late, so why do you ignore Rick's claim that no collateral deaths exist during the production of
grass fed beef?

"Bill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ipse dixit said:

"Bill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ipse dixit wrote:

>I believe their CD argument holds a double standard.

It doesn't.

You ignore Rick's denial of the collateral deaths associated with his diet while at the same
time criticising vegans for denying the collateral deaths associated with theirs, so your
argument against vegans is a double standard.

I haven't read Rick's posts about the CDs in his diet, so I can't be consciously ignoring them. I
don't intend to read them, either. I have only your word to go on that he's doing it, and your
word is notoriously unreliable.

======================
You haven't missed much except the typical unethical sleaze of twits. he continues to snip the
pertinent parts of my replies and post his unannotated snips as the complete discussion.

Quoted message said:

My argument is not "a double standard".

"rick etter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Ipse dixit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Bill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ipse dixit wrote:
>
> I believe their CD argument holds a double standard.

It doesn't.

You ignore Rick's denial of the collateral deaths associated with his diet

=======================
No, I did not.

I didn't ask about the beef you eat, because I knew you were going to lie about it by claiming your
particular grass fed beef is different from all other grass fed beef and doesn't accrue any
collateral deaths at all, and it seems I was right. So I'll ask again.

"Do you accept that the *general* production, storage, and distribution of grass fed beef
accumulates any collateral deaths?"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

while at the same time criticising vegans for denying the collateral deaths associated with
theirs, so your argument against vegans is a double standard.

==================
Nope. You haven't shown that at all.

I clearly have, because they all let you get away with your claim that no collateral deaths are
associated with the production of your grass fed beef. That's a double standard.